Uber Drivers Have Rights on Wages and Time Off, UK Panel Rules (apnews.com) 125
Uber suffered a blow on Friday to its operations in its biggest market outside the United States when a British panel ruled in London rejected the company's argument that its drivers were self employed. The decision, which affirmed a ruling made last year, means that Uber will have to ensure its drivers in Britain are paid a minimum wage and entitled to time off, casting doubt on a common hiring model in the so-called gig economy that relies on workers who do not have a formal contract as permanent employees. From a report: Judge Jennifer Eady rejected Uber's argument that the men were independent contractors, because the drivers had no opportunity to make their own agreements with passengers and the company required them to accept 80 percent of trip requests when they were on duty. The tribunal, Eady wrote in her decision, found "the drivers were integrated into the Uber business of providing transportation services." The ride-hailing service said it has never required drivers in the U.K. to accept 80 percent of the trips offered to them and that drivers make well above the minimum wage. Employment lawyers expect the case to be heard by higher courts as early as next year.
The heading (Score:1)
sounds like a Mr.Burns joke from the Simpsons.
I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
And if they don't want to serve me food for 2 weeks I'm definitely not paying them for those 2 weeks.
Same is true if I had a meal plan somewhere.
My job (software consultant) says they want me sooo bad they'll pay for me to have 3 weeks off. The US gov doesn't make them do that.
So why is a gov MAKING some businesses PAY for services in exchange for NOTHING?
Another place where we are paying the government for someone else's generosity.
Re: I don't get it (Score:1)
I think you don't understand the culture of work outside the US.
In the US, corporations and very rich have complete control of the government. In most other countries, much less so.
Labour laws are made to define socially acceptable boundaries and relationships between employers and workers.
In most countries, it is not socially acceptable to not have annual leave. In the UK, the minimum prescribed by law is 20 days, but most companies offer 25 days, and some offer more (my employer offers 30 days).
This has m
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't understand why we should care about society. I care about my neighbor. Society is just an abstraction. 83% of people in the US (that includes a lot
Re: (Score:1)
Why should they REQUIRE by law something that people naturally do anyway?
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it's just because I'm young and naive/not discriminated against much yet, but it looks like there is demand for me as a permanent.
Driver's don't get the opportunity to.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber is the one contracting the drivers. The drivers are using their own equipment, at their own cost, and setting their own work schedule.
The drivers no more get to negotiate prices with their passengers than an independent contractor that's hired by a construction firm gets to negotiate their prices with the construction firm's clients.
That might fly (Score:3)
I could probably come up with other reasons why Uber drivers are, for all intents and purposes, employees, but I'll give other's a chance to chime in. Also, you probably do
Re: (Score:3)
Drivers don't get the opportunity to negotiate with passengers because the passengers are not who is contracting the drivers in the first place. The passengers are Uber's clients, not the driver's.
IMO, Uber should fix this. Enabling drivers to set prices would solve their employee vs contractor problem in most (maybe all?) jurisdictions.
The fix is pretty straightforward. Essentially, pricing should be done by a sort of a real-time auction. Drivers should be allowed to set their price in generic terms, using a per-mile, per-minute, etc. model, similar to how taxi metering is done in most places, or to how I'm sure Uber calculates prices now -- but the driver gets to pick the numbers. Drivers should
Re: (Score:2)
and what about airport fees / toll / etc in that system?
Re: (Score:2)
and what about airport fees / toll / etc in that system?
Clearly those would have to be included in the fare -- both en route to pickup and from pickup to destination.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't recall where i read, but such an option creates a horrendous system of required tips way beyond surge pricing.
I think it was either Singapore or Phillipines where the driver must be tipped like 5usd at minimum or they just wont accept. So everyone had to pay more... Which in the end became similar to taxies.
It aas another ride hailing app
If that's the case, then either there are too many obstacles to becoming a driver for the ride hailing app, or else the taxi pricing is already at the market price. Auction systems are very good at finding the real market price of a good or service. (I'm not sure where "tips" come in; there's no need for tipping when the price negotiation is up front, and what an odd system you describe where tips are offered *before* the ride)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. And that's why the drivers are legally employed by Uber rather than being independent contractors.
Gig economy (Score:2)
It has one major problem There is always someone who will take a job for a lower rate than you need.
This lead to unionization, insurance, paid time off etc. etc
Re: (Score:3)
And? Eventually, the world runs out of third world workers.
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone is third world, then everyone is first world.
In the end, absolute quality of life is what matters. And that'll only increase (assuming we tax the wealthy appropriately).
Minimum wage from who? (Score:1)
If I am signed into the Uber app AND the Lyft app but don't accept any jobs, do they both have to pay me minimum wage?
they may be forced to schedule shifts and take any (Score:2)
they may be forced to schedule shifts and take any ride that comes up. But uber can be forced to pay full mileage / some kind of liable insurance coverage / cell phone reimbursement (very in us states) / toll fees / etc.
(based us laws don't know how it works in the uk)
Re: (Score:2)
Enlightened self interest (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The underlying supposition to your statement is that the only reason anybody doesn't pay "bare legal minimum" -- assuming it's even an employer/employee relationship -- is "to buy a 3rd Mercedes".
While that's true of large multi-nationals, it's not true of the majority of businesses, with razor sharp margins.
Perhaps these laws should instead mandate some minimum percentage of *profit* be paid to employees. So that it accurately ensures fair wages when there is actually money being made.
BTW, Uber bleeds like
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
true, but it's about more than just "blame". If your business isn't viable you shouldn't exploit your employees and require them to subsidise it.
a business crying poor and whining that they can't afford to pay fair wages is doing exactly that. if a business can't survive without ripping off its workers then it deserves to go under.
and whining that their customers won't pay 5 cents extra for a coffee or whatever it is they're buying is bullshit too - customers don't have a right to have their purchases sub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a business plan that isn't economically feasible you shouldn't blame your employees.
Since when is paying someone a market price "blaming"? Look, the choice isn't between some razor-sharp-margin business paying "well" and "paying bare minimum".
The choice is some razor-sharp-margin business "paying bare minimum" or "pay nothing at all".
And if margins are so razor thin why does anybody bother?
Do you understand the implication of this sentence? I means instead of being paid "bare minimum", that person isn't paid at all. Because the business doesn't exist.
People act like there's some infinite amount of money or fat-margin business ideas out there and
Re: (Score:2)
Sensible (Score:1)
It was about time somebody put a stop to this 'business model' which amounts to pure exploitation.
I am all for innovation and new business models, but what uber was doing is crass and blatantly illegal in the UK. They've stretched intepretations of labour laws, stretched definition of what a contractor is, not to mention licensing and passenger and driver safety. Above all, it's a wrong and exploitative model and I hope the UK courts will continue to enforce laws in this and all similar cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Details...? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your contract of employment (do you have those in the US?) will state either set hours and day of work, hours per week ("per rota") etc. and normally a stipulation that you don't accept employment from some other company. Break those terms of contact and you've broken the contract. So the company is not required to pay you.
A common stipulation is a little more complex - you might be required to get the agreement of your existing boss before acceptin
How about Mechanical Turk? (Score:2)
If Uber drivers have to be employees because they don't get to negotiate with the end-client, then it sounds like Amazon Mechanical Turk is in the same situation.
Must make sure they pay all users completing hits at least £7.20 / Hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you let your employer do this to you. Either stand up for yourself or move to a country with decent labor laws. Alternately, unionize and/or work for better labor protection laws.
If you're willing to take whatever crap somebody is willing to give you, don't complain that somebody else gets less crap.
Al you need to know... (Score:1)
Uber suffered a blow on Friday to its operations...
That opening line says it all. Uber's business model is treat employees as shitty as it possibly can.
Power balance (Score:2)
The real problem in situations like this is the classic one of an imbalance of power. Basically, certainly in this case, the employer has nearly all the power. Thatâ(TM)s why there are regulations of various kinds, to even out the balance somewhat. Thatâ(TM)s what unions are for, and sometimes they get too powerful and then they start misusing their power.
Itâ(TM)s all about balance.
The contractor model doesnt work. (Score:1)
HACKING ATM CARDS (Score:1)
Re:Are they stupid or something? (Score:5, Informative)
Paid time off is legally mandated for all employed people in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Paid time off is legally mandated for all employed people in the UK.
Is this also true for the part-time IT consultant or contractor that gets paid an hourly rate?
Just looking to see exactly how far the UK takes the definition of "employed people"
Re: (Score:2)
It depends, if you can show you contract for short periods with multiple clients
Many drivers work for both Uber and Lyft, and take fares from either app as they come in.
In America (don't know about the UK) most Uber/Lyft drivers are part time, and it is not their main source of income.
Re: (Score:2)
Lyft is not authorized in the UK. Uber is the only "car sharing" service that is authorized. Smaller ones have tried, only to be crushed by bureaucracy. Even Uber was almost shut down recently in London by the city.
Re: (Score:1)
What does a UK judge know about UK labor law anyway? They should listen to some rando American on /. for the real scoop.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends, are you an employee? I know of a contractor who works for himself. He pays himself the wage that his company company collects from whomever is using his services right now. He also has to set aside a small amount of money in a separate business account to cover the accrued cost of his holidays until he formally takes them.
Although nothing stops him from working while he's taking holidays which is how he gets around the annoyance.
UK IT Contractors use a company (Score:2)
I'm a UK IT Contractor and like most I use a company, my company pays me a salary even if I'm not actually doing billable work. I actually take around 3 months paid leave each year. That is my choice. My company charges my clients a billable rate around ten times the UK minimum wage. This sort of setup is common with contractors in the UK, some take less time off, some more, that is their choice, they get paid a annual salary that is well above the minimum wage including leave. I could work a couple mo
Re: (Score:2)
There is a *huge* thing going on in the UK at the moment to stop people skirting the system by being a "contractor" or run their own company while fulfilling services for a small group of employers.
It's called IR35, and is fundamentally changing a lot of relationships - significant numbers of IT contractors have had to switch to actually being employed, doctors are having to do the same etc etc.
Uber and its workers violate IR35 in a big way.
That's how far the U.K. takes the definition of "employed".
Re: (Score:2)
Paid time off is legally mandated for all employed people in the UK.
Is this also true for the part-time IT consultant or contractor that gets paid an hourly rate?
Just looking to see exactly how far the UK takes the definition of "employed people"
Erm... the court ruled that the employers of Uber are _NOT_ contractors. They lost the appeal too, so now Uber has to provide them with the same basic rights as other employees. Zero hour contract employees are still entitled to holiday pay in the UK. Zero hour contracts are closer to salaried employees than contractors.
Contract is different to employment, but you are meant to be paid more in order to be compensated for things like paid holidays (20 days minimum), paid bank holidays (8 per year), paid si
Re: (Score:2)
It's legally mandated in almost every country in the world. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a distinction between employee type. In most places casual workers don't get paid leave. Part timers however do. There's more too it then just being an employee or not.
Part timers vs fake 1099's (some people work 40) (Score:2)
Part timers vs fake 1099's (some people are working the full 40 hours)
The 1099 in name only needs to stop good think the UK is cracking done on that.
Lot's of cable systems use middle man to have there cable guys be 1099's when they have little control over the pay or workload.
Re:Are they stupid or something? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hilarious that the US still calls itself "the land of the free"
Mandatory paid time off may be a good idea, but it is not "freedom". It is a restriction on liberty for (arguably) a greater social good.
"Freedom" would leave it up to individuals whether they want vacation, or would prefer shorter daily hours or higher pay. Because that is the tradeoff. The paid vacation is not going to be "free".
Re: Are they stupid or something? (Score:1)
Only an american can make a silly argument like this. Freedom for corporations, not for the people.
Freedom is more than choice. It's also about what is basic decency and freedom from being mistreated and exploited by employers.
Re: Are they stupid or something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom is more than choice. It's also about what is basic decency
Government enforced decency is not "freedom". It may be a good idea in many cases, but simply using "freedom" as a synonym for "good" is idiotic.
freedom from being mistreated and exploited by employers.
Protection from being mistreated and exploited by employers. Whenever you see the phrase "freedom from" being used, rather than "freedom to", it is almost always being used inappropriately.
Re: (Score:2)
We somehow managed to rule that corporations are people, so we're simply eating our own crow here.
Re: (Score:1)
It's hilarious that the US still calls itself "the land of the free"
Mandatory paid time off may be a good idea, but it is not "freedom". It is a restriction on liberty for (arguably) a greater social good.
"Freedom" would leave it up to individuals whether they want vacation, or would prefer shorter daily hours or higher pay. Because that is the tradeoff. The paid vacation is not going to be "free".
And thats why we don't see it as freedom.
I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard from an American "Wow, you're allowed to take a whole two weeks off at once"... and then watch their look of utter amazement when I tell them I do that twice a year. In fact in my current role, I get 26 days (5+ weeks) in paid holidays, 8 bank holidays and 6 closure days (which are over Christmas/NY when my workplace closes), so 40 days in total and I'm getting paid more than an American in my position (I get the s
firemen are paid to wait for the call so why not (Score:2, Insightful)
firemen are paid to wait for the call so why not for other people who provide on call services?
Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no (Score:5, Insightful)
Because firemen are required to wait and Uber drivers aren't.
Re: (Score:1)
Because firemen are required to wait and Uber drivers aren't.
Ah, so clarity is needed around necessity? That's easy.
Go to any major city that has a long-established history with ride-sharing services and immediately shut every single one of them down.
You would find proposed legislation in front of the mayor within hours, re-defining ride-sharing as "critical infrastructure", with the pitchfork-wielding masses storming city hall by midnight...
Re:firemen are paid to wait for the call so why no (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous. Uber did not exist ten years ago. Plus 95% of the population have never used them.
Re: (Score:3)
In many small towns, the firemen are part time workers who are "on call" from their day job. They only get paid for time spent either training or responding to alarms. They usually keep some equipment, such as extinguishers and first aid kits, in their home or workplace, so they can go directly to a reported problem in their neighborhood, rather than going to the station first. This generally works well, since response time is often the most important factor in an emergency.
Disclaimer: When I was growing up
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK, if you are on-call and required to stay at or close to a workplace, you must be paid. Volunteers have no such constraints.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, if you are on-call and required to stay at or close to a workplace, you must be paid.
Uber drivers are not required to stay at or close to a workplace. They can go offline anytime they want.
Even when online and waiting for a fare, they are not required to stay in their car, just nearby. I am rarely more than 100m from my car, so that doesn't seem like much of a burden.
Re: (Score:1)
I think that 100m counts as "close", don't you?
So, these drivers are somewhere near their car, monitoring their cellphones for rides. How is that not on-call?
In traditional employment in the UK, you could be in a cinema, or down the pub and still expect to be paid for your time if you are on-call at that time.
Re: (Score:3)
How is that not on-call?
It is not "on call", because answering the call is completely optional. If a fireman or ambulance driver is "on call", he can lose his job if he doesn't respond. For an Uber driver, there is no repercussion, other than that fare going to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Because firemen are required to wait and Uber drivers aren't.
Hmmm . . . well, maybe firemen could become hobby pyromaniacs in their spare time, and thus reduce the waiting time . . . ?
Re: (Score:3)
maybe firemen could become hobby pyromaniacs in their spare time, and thus reduce the waiting time . . . ?
They already thought of that. About 100 firefighters a year [www.cbc.ca] are convicted as serial arsonists in North America.
Re: (Score:2)
you are literally insane if you desire to win the race to the bottom
Judging by this site, a lot of Americans value exactly that type of freedom and will fight adamantly for it. It boggles my mind.
Uber punishes drivers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Firemen are occupying that waiting time with a bunch of stuff that is also their job like physical training, or maintaining vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is incomplete: it's PAID time off that they are entitled to.
In the UK all employees are entitled to a minimum of about 5 weeks paid time off every year. Uber argued that they are not employees, but legally they are.
Re: Are they stupid or something? (Score:1)
Re:Are they stupid or something? (Score:4, Insightful)
A nice example of a circular argument.
If you are employed and at the workplace, you must be paid. Just because the boss doesn't have any work for you to do is irrelevant. If there isn't any work, the boss should send you home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are on site, waiting for work, in the UK, an employment tribunal might decide that you are actually working for those hours. Bosses really need to send people home and not let them linger on site if they want to ensure that they are safe from an unpaid wages claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was rhetorical... the answer is that you can't. If somebody you contracted for work wants to hang onto his own phone in the hopes that he'll get a call and you'll have more work for him to do when you have never asked of him to do so is doing so entirely on his own time. Not yours.
Some of the biggest reasons why Uber drivers would be considered independent contractors, in no particular order, are as follows:
Re: (Score:2)
I just took like 2 weeks off from Uber.
Did you get paid during that time. You know, like the "time off" we are talking about right now?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Counterpoint: this is what happens when you have a bunch of techno manbabies foolishly maneuvering around established workplace rules that make everyone's lives better.
Re: (Score:2)
Sane governments like stable employment because it makes for happy voters, the majority of voters, the workers, that to whom society should be adjusted to serve because they are the majority. Hence the create laws to promote and protect stable employment in order to have happy workers and avoid workers revolutions, which always end up being rather scruffy, untidy and pointless affairs, replacing one group of exploiters with another group of exploiters or replacing one association of psychopaths with another
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn those socialists for winning weekends off, an eight-hour work day, minimum wage, and banning child labor! What horrible monsters they were!
Re: (Score:1)
It's called socialism man. Dictating how businesses should behave since early XX century.
FTFY